Utter bullshit. Letting the disease run its course doesn't keep everything going, it kills people as well as destroying the economy. I don't see a thing there that says anybody's "shutting off all food aid, food exports". America has already lost 130,000 people, and Arizona has more new cases a day with 7 million population as the EU does with 440 million.As to that last one, the famine has been going on since 2016, due to a civil war exacerbated by the US, UK and Saudis. No food is getting there because the Saudis are blockading the country."Yemen faces the world's worst humanitarian crisis, with the coronavirus pandemic compounding the effect of five years of civil war. Houthi rebels backed by Iran have been fighting Yemen's government. It is backed by a Saudi-led coalition which is supported by the US and the UK. 2 million of Yemen's children are malnourished, and 1.7 million have been forced to flee their homes. A child dies every 10 minutes from a preventable disease. "
Me, too. I'm angry at the political culture that killed them.
I am as well, but it's difficult to fix intellectual disparities.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
"you probably can't think at that level" Really?I've not heard of anyone infecting "EVERYBODY at one party", but I know the R0 is an average; some people might not infect anyone, others might infect a dozen.I think I read about a governor who had done everything right, but caught it anyway. She didn't die.I'm not necessarily "going to get SARS-COV-2 at some point", especially if I don't come into contact with anyone who has it, which is more likely when there are fewer than 2,500 cases per million (and decreasing) than 10,000 and increasing.
Sure, she didn't die, but how did she get it? She isolated, distanced, and disinfected the way she was supposed to. And she wasn't the only one.
Nobody said it was foolproof, the point (as it looked like you understood) is to reduce the R0 number, and generally the chances of getting the virus. What's your argument? "It doesn't work 100% of the time, so there's no point in trying"? The same can be said for, say, seatbelts, or condoms, or airbags, or helmets, or pretty much anything designed to keep you safe. It only ever means "safer".
Yeah, I knew you didn't understand. The procedures were intended to slow it down, not reduce your chances of getting it. We're all going to get it, we're just don't want to get it all at once and overwhelm the hospitals. Can you identify the problem with slowing the spread to.23% per week? Take as long as you need. Double check your math. And state it in whatever unit you feel appropriate.
How about reducing it to zero? Like New Zealand did.You make R0 < 1, and, eventually, because everyone is less likely to come into contact with it, it essentially dies out. Or are you saying we've both caught Smallpox, Ebola, Polio, the Plague and every other disease on the planet?
Since you're obviously too lazy to look it up, this is what R0 means:"R0 tells you the average number of people who will contract a contagious disease from one person with that disease.""What do R0 values mean?Three possibilities exist for the potential transmission or decline of a disease, depending on its R0 value:* If R0 is less than 1, each existing infection causes less than one new infection. In this case, the disease will decline and eventually die out.* If R0 equals 1, each existing infection causes one new infection. The disease will stay alive and stable, but there won’t be an outbreak or an epidemic.* If R0 is more than 1, each existing infection causes more than one new infection. The disease will be transmitted between people, and there may be an outbreak or epidemic."www.healthline.com/.../r-nought-reproduction-numberYour made-up.23% increase is a simple exponential increase, which is not how these things work. The initial phase of an epidemic looks (and is) exponential (remember the number of cases in the US were doubling every three days at one point), but they ALWAYS level out, if only because it runs out of people left to infect.Of course, in sane societies, people listen to the experts and do what is recommended, and the slope flattens out much earlier.
I know how to calculate infection rates. That's not what I was asking about. There's a big difference in viruses that naturally have an R0 of less than 1 (like SARS-COV-1), viruses that are only infectious under certain conditions (Ebola), and viruses that are highly infectious but controlled to less than 1. Case in point, New Zealand has two new cases of Covid.You never answered my question, and that doesn't surprise me. See, if you limit a disease to infecting only.23% of the population every week, (which would be 750,000 in the U. S. alone), it would take 440 weeks for it to make its way through the population. That's almost eight and a half years. And here in the U. S., we're averaging 140,000 new cases every week. 3 Million have been infected, and there are 1.8 million active cases. That puts the R0 under controlled conditions at.077. Not 1. Not less than 1. UNDER.1! And it's still not dying off? We're talking about a virus that has an R0 of 2.3 under normal conditions, and we've controlled it to.077, and it's still picking up speed. Think about that. Now consider that certain labs in Florida reportedly had 76-100% positive test results, but when a news agency called to ask the labs directly, the rates were 6-10%. And they've been *ahem* "blending" the viral and antibody test results and reporting the whole batch as "new cases", which the CDC admits to.
Really? It doesn't seem like you're getting it, in fact it looks like you're just making things up!For example, SARS-COV-1 did not "naturally have an R0 of less than 1":"The basic reproduction number of SARS-CoV, R0, ranges from 2 to 4 depending on different analyses. Control measures introduced in April 2003 reduced the R to 0.4."en.wikipedia.org/.../Severe_acute_respiratory_syndromeYour maths question, I now see, is even more irrelevant than I thought. You meant 0.23% of the entire population every week, not the infected population, didn't you?Firstly, only 1% of the population has been infected after six months, so a quarter of that every week is unreasonable, and, secondly, you won't get the same number of new cases every week unless the R0 value is exactly 1, which it never will be.I don't know what you're trying to do with your figures, but they don't make any sense. R0 is clearly over 1, because the number of new cases is increasing daily. That's what it's a measure of. I don't see where you got your 0.077 figure from. Certainly, the virus is not under control, like the Bush adminstration managed with SARS-COV-1. (Never in my wildest dreams did I think things would be better with him in charge!)New cases in the US every week has varied, from nearly none in February, to nearly 200,000 a week in April, May and June, but is now double that, and rising.www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Compare the number of new cases reported each week to the number of active cases
"Compare the number of new cases reported each week to the number of active cases"Not exactly showing your workings, are you? Or is that just a requirement for me, not you?
What do you come up with for an effective R0?
I repeat: "R0 is clearly over 1, because the number of new cases is increasing daily. That's what it's a measure of."
No. R0 is a measure of how many people an infected person will subsequently infect.
You never showed your workings. I guess you divided the incorrect number you gave for new cases a week by the number of active cases to get your 0.077 value (it's actually 0.078, if you round correctly).That's not how to calculate it. For a start, it doesn't take account of how long people are contageous for, nor that most of the active cases will be isolated in a hospital somewhere.Anyway, yes, effective R0 is the average number of people infected by a given person with the disease, but if it's below one, the number of new cases a day decreases (like in NY, NJ), if it's more than one, the number of new cases a day increases (like in Texas and Arizona).The basic R0 assumes an untouched population with no counter-measures, and is between 1.4 and 3.9 for SARS-CoV-2.
We don't have an untouched population with no countermeasures. So we use effective R0, or Re. And we don't have a need for modeling because we have hard numbers. I estimated duration at 1 week because of quarantine protocols after the onset of symptoms. Even if you stretch it out to 1 month, Re would still be less than.3.by the way, you never stated the problem with limiting the spread to.23% of the population every week (you deflected, but I didn't forget)
No, you have a touched population with insufficient countermeasures, otherwise the number of new infections a day would be going down, like in Europe, NY, NJ, not up. Including people who have been isolated in hospital for months just skews the figures showing how the virus spreads.You keep coming back to this 0.23% of the population figure, I don't know why. That would be twice the number of new cases a day as you were getting two weeks ago, and I don't know how you expect to limit it to that figure, considering that would involve a constant rate of infection, which is almost impossible. The problem is so obvious, I didn't think it needed to be stated: thousands of Americans dying every week.
I didn't think you could figure it out.
LMAO! Enlighten me, then, oh great and wise one!
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!